Remember those little marriage icons on Facebook.com, Inc. (FB)? Well the site, which at times has been accused of being intolerant to homosexuality, has stirred up a pot of worms by adding special icons to celebrate the marriage of gay couples.

When one of the network's 900 million users posts that they got hitched, traditionally they were treated with a standard heterosexual male and female cake-topper style icon. Homosexual couples received the same icon, much to their chagrin.

But in the U.S. over the weekend, users began to notice new icons -- two males or two females -- were introduced.

James Lazar, a 38-year-old Chicago man was married (to a man), but had refused to change his status for some time due to the male-female icon. He commented, "I don't like being forced into typical gender roles -- because we aren't. I think it's offensive."

But he eventually bit the bullet and updated his profile to reflect his marriage. And to his surprise and delight shortly thereafter his icon changed to two men. He recalls in a CNNinterview, "I honestly didn't realize it was going to show up in my feed. I have 80,000 people 'liking' it and congratulating me and I'm like, 'Well, it was seven years ago!'"

No, the idea is that gay people can be invisible because their qualities are indistinguishable from heterosexuals and that that's a good thing. The idea is that gay people who possess qualities that fit the stereotypes, particularly effeminate men, are inferior.

This thinking is commonplace. It's because our culture worships masculinity. We live in a sexist culture and so sexist thinking dominates. Heterosexism is an extension of sexism to a great degree.

I think it's your thinking that is flawed. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they have to suddenly act different. A person is who a person is; gay or straight should not affect your behavior outside the bed, as that's the only place -where it even matters-.

People forget they can be sexist or racist to themselves by trying to set themselves apart on purpose, by believing they -must- be different.

I should clarify, the point is you should only be who you are. If that fits into a stereotype, fine. But a person should never go out of their way to change themselves so that they fit a stereotype, because they are straight or because they are gay or because they are purple.

That to me is the greatest offense. The whole idea that you must be different is destructive. Just be a person, you.

There is evidence that gay men tend toward having hybrid characteristics.

One study found that most gay men employ reasoning strategies shown by most heterosexual men and heterosexual women, rather than only employing the strategies typically used by heterosexual men. The study also found that most gay women tend toward typically heterosexual male reasoning strategies.

Another study found that gay men tend to have more feminine finger length patterns, indicating less testosterone exposure in the womb.

Another study found brain differences in which the brains of gay people were more like those of the opposite sex than heterosexual brains typically are.

At the same time, there are some gay men who are very masculine and some gay women who are very feminine. However, the studies point toward most gay people being somewhat hybridized.

Our culture worships masculinity and a great deal of opprobrium against gay men (and lesbians to a lesser, but still significant extent) comes from a sense of outrage over crossing gender lines. Since our culture worships masculinity, effeminacy in males is considered particularly egregious.

The fact that some gay people conform well to our rigid typical heterosexual gender role does not mean it's OK to put those people on a pedestal and look down on those who don't. The "I know gay people who don't fit the stereotypes; they're role models for other gays" thing is exactly that thinking. It's not healthy for anyone, including heterosexual males who feel oppressed by the strictness of the gender role and resort to cross-dressing (usually cross-dressers are especially "masculine" in appearance, demeanor, and occupation).

quote: No, the idea is that gay people can be invisible because their qualities are indistinguishable from heterosexuals and that that's a good thing.

Is the ability to fit in a bad thing in your eyes? If so, why?

quote: The idea is that gay people who possess qualities that fit the stereotypes, particularly effeminate men, are inferior.

Who's idea? I don't see it as being implied by Samus' post that you responded to. I certainly don't think of effeminate men as inferior, gay or not. Then again, I probably wouldn't given that I'm not the paragon of macho-manlyness. Of course, few are.

Conformity has good and bad qualities. Excessive conformity, where the ability of a person's to contribute is impaired, is obviously bad for society. Yet, excessive conformity is generally the rule.

quote: I don't see it as being implied by Samus' post that you responded to.

It is. But, more importantly, our culture believes that. So, debating whether or not a specific poster intended that implication or not isn't nearly as useful as acknowledging the implication and why it's important.

But, a lot of folks would rather hide it because they feel it doesn't apply to them. The fact is that minorities help to enrich culture and policies that are socially corrosive affect the entire culture, not just the obvious targets.